1. INTRODUCTION

For well over a hundred years the religious ideas and practices of
the patriarchs have attracted scholarly attention. In view of the place Abraham
occupies in various religious traditions this is understandable. What is more
surprising is that in the scholarly debate, no clear consensus about the
content of his religion has emerged.[2]

At least four factors can be pinpointed which have contributed to
this uncertainty. First, Genesis itself says relatively little about
patriarchal religion. It tells us much about their religious experiences, but
little about their beliefs or religious practices.

Secondly, the accounts of the patriarchs as we now have them are
all post-Sinaitic, that is they presuppose the innovations in belief and
practice that date from the time of Moses. Various texts allude to the
differences between the religion of Moses and that of the patriarchs. For
example Exodus 6:3 says: 'I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El
Shaddai (God Almighty, RSV), but by my name the LORD I did not make myself
known to them.' Joshua 24:14 states: 'Put away the gods your fathers served
beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.' Both these texts appear to
contrast the religious ideas and practices of the fathers with the post-Mosaic
period. Yet Genesis itself gives very few hints that the patriarchs worshipped
other gods. Indeed it usually describes the God who appears and speaks to the
patriarchs as 'the LORD' (Yahweh), i.e. the God of Moses.

This prompts the question (thirdly): is this identification of the
patriarchs' God with that of Moses a theological assertion by the writer of
Genesis, who was

[p.158]

sure the same God had spoken to Abraham as spoke to Moses? Or do
the statements in Genesis implying that Yahweh revealed himself to the
patriarchs correspond to the patriarchs' own conception of the God they
worshipped? Answers to this most basic question are complicated by further
considerations. It is generally held that Genesis is composed of several
sources giving rather different accounts of the religion of the patriarchs.

And last but not least, the theological convictions of those who
study Genesis affect their conclusions. Jews and Christians who regard Abraham
as the father of the faithful are reluctant to accept that he was a polytheist
who served strange gods. On the other hand, scholars who hold that religion is
essentially a human creation are hardly likely to suppose that the patriarchs
were pure monotheists.

These briefly are the main problems that confront a would-be
historian of Old Testament religion in describing the beliefs and religious
practices of the patriarchs. To arrive at the pure historical truth one needs
to be able to shed one's own presuppositions, and distinguish between the
interpretations of Genesis and the underlying facts. Such a programme is
regrettably impossible. My aims are more modest. In this essay I shall first of
all set out the statements of Genesis about patriarchal religion. These raw
statements will enable us to grasp how the final editor of Genesis viewed
patriarchal religion.

Since it is generally held that Genesis is made up of earlier
sources J, E and P, the pictures of patriarchal religion found in them will be
described next. Assumptions about the dates of these sources have played a
large part in assessing the validity of these different pictures. But in an
effort to distinguish the authentic early elements in the accounts from later
interpretations more recent scholarship has emphasized the similarities between
other early Semitic religions and the beliefs of the patriarchs. So a few of
the most representative accounts of patriarchal religion will be surveyed
next.

Finally an attempt will be made to evaluate the different
suggestions. If one is not to fall back on dogmatic assumptions, there is only
one way to do this: to ask which of the supposed reconstructions is most
self-consistent and at the same time most true to the biblical data. In
particular I shall focus on three questions. Did the patriarchs worship a God
called Yahweh? Are the divine promises made to the patriarchs an early element
in the tradition or were they added by later editors? Did patriarchal religion
differ from later Israelite religion, or are the accounts in Genesis simply

[p.159]

retrojections of later first-millennium beliefs and practices into
the distant past?

2. THE RAW DATA

2.1. The Names of God

According to Genesis God revealed himself to the patriarchs under
various different names, and the patriarchs used a variety of divine epithets
in their prayers. Abraham knew of Yahweh, Elohim, El Elyon, El Shaddai, El Roi,
and El Olam. Isaac knew of Yahweh, Elohim and El Shaddai. Jacob knew of Yahweh,
Elohim, El Bethel, Pahad Yishaq (Fear or relative of Isaac) and El Shaddai.
However, since the use of some of these epithets may be ascribed to editorial
identification of different deities, it is necessary to distinguish carefully
between the various usages of the divine names, i.e. whether they occur in the
framework of the story and therefore represent the editor's understanding of
the situation or whether they form part of the dialogue in the story and
therefore may represent the wording of the source, rather than an editor's
understanding of his source. Sometimes more than one divine name is used in the
same passage, and in such cases it is more possible that one of the items is an
editorial addition identifying the two divine names. Such problematic cases
will therefore be ignored in the following analysis. The results may be
conveniently summarized in tabular form.[3]

Table 1

Distribution of Divine Names by Narrative
Context

Abraham

Jacob

Joseph

Framework(editor)

Dialogue(source?)

Framework

Dialogue

Framework

Dialogue

Yahweh

45

20

(2)

11

14

(0)

11

0

(0)

Elohim

24

11

(2)

14

28

(1)

2

30

(0)

El Shaddai

0

1

(1)

0

2

(1)

0

2

(0)

El (other names)

1

3

(0)

1

3

(2)

0

0

(0)

Adonai

0

6

(0)

0

0

(0)

0

0

(0)

Mixed

1

9

(0)

0

6

(1)

0

2

(1)

Full discussion of the data in this table will follow later, but
three points are immediately clear. First, in all three cycles El Shaddai only
occurs in the dialogue, never in the narrative framework of the stories.

[p.160]

This suggests that at least this term is an early element in the
tradition.

Secondly, in the Joseph cycle Yahweh is used only in the narrative
framework, never in the speeches within the story. There, El Shaddai or Elohim
is consistently used. This might be thought to be due to the setting of the
stories, where the sons of Jacob are constantly dealing with Egyptians and
other foreigners. But in fact in many of the situations where God is mentioned,
the brothers are talking to each other or with their father Jacob (e.g. 42:28;
45:5, 7, 8, 9; 50:25). This could suggest that the narrator identified the God
of the patriarchs with Yahweh but that his sources did not refer to Yahweh, but
only to Elohim or El Shaddai and that he faithfully preserved this feature in
his dialogues. Whether this hypothesis can be sustained will be discussed
further below.

Thirdly, and this apparently contradicts the second point, in the
Abraham cycles Yahweh and Elohim are found both in the narrative framework and
in the dialogue. In these stories then, both Yahweh and Elohim have equal
claims to originality. If only one of the terms originally belonged to the
traditions, later editors have not only reworded the narrative framework but
also the dialogue. Another way of resolving this confusion is usually
preferred, however, namely the postulation of different sources. It will be
argued below that this solution is also fraught with difficulty.

Discussions of patriarchal religion tend to concentrate on the
names of God to the virtual exclusion of other aspects of their belief and
practice, simply because the source material is so much more scanty in this
respect. However, for a rounded picture it is necessary to mention the few
details found in Genesis.[4] Altars are built,
sacrifices, libations, and covenants are made; prayer, circumcision, tithes,
vows, and ritual purification are other ingredients of their religion.
Household gods were also highly valued. Apart from the last point the practice
of the patriarchs apparently differed little from their successors. However,
the texts are quite vague about the how and where of sacrifice. In general they
worship in places that were well-known in later times for their sanctuaries.
Yet the impression is conveyed that the patriarchs offered sacrifice outside
the towns, presumably without the aid of the local priesthood. This would be
somewhat irregular by later standards. It would of course have been even more
surprising had the patriarchs regularly worshipped at Canaanite shrines staffed
by Canaanite priests; though Genesis 14 does suggest that on one occasion at
least this is what Abraham did.

[p.161]

If Genesis says little about the patriarchal mode of worship, it
says much more about the divine promises made to them, and that for two
reasons. First, their faith in these promises and their obedience to God's word
served as a model to later generations of faithful Israelites. And secondly,
the promises provided a justification for the settlement of the land. Three
main themes recur, sometimes together and other times separately: they are the
promise of numerous descendants who will form a great nation, the promise of
the land and the promise of blessing on Abraham's descendants and through them
to the whole world. These promises are spelt out very fully in many passages,
and beside them the references to actual religious practices are relatively
brief and fleeting.

How far is the picture of patriarchal religion modified by the
classical source-critical analysis, which distributes the material among J, E,
and P? A table will again be used to present the results.[5]

Table 2

Distribution of Divine Names by Sources

Abraham

Jacob

Joseph

Framework

Dialogue

Framework

Dialogue

Framework

Dialogue

P Source

Yahweh

2

-

-

-

-

-

Elohim

12

3

5

1

-

-

El Shaddai

-

1

-

2

-

1

JE Redaction

Yahweh

1

-

-

-

-

-

E Source

Yahweh

1

2

-

-

-

-

Elohim

12

8

9

19

1

27

El (Bethel)

-

-

-

3

-

-

El Shaddai

-

-

-

-

-

1

Adonai

-

1

-

-

-

-

Mixed

-

-

-

3

-

1

J Source

Yahweh

41

18

11

14

11

-

Elohim

-

-

-

8

1

3

El Roi

-

1

-

-

-

-

Adonai

-

5

-

-

-

-

Mixed

1

8

-

3

-

1

This table evaluating the use of the divine names on the basis of
the source analysis gives a more nuanced picture than the simple analysis
offered earlier, but the same three facts are clear. First, El Shaddai is
found

[p.162]

only in the dialogue, never in the framework. Secondly, in the
Joseph cycle, Yahweh is used only in the framework of the story, never in the
dialogues. There Elohim or El Shaddai is used. Thirdly, in the J, E and P
versions of the Abraham cycle, Yahweh is used in the framework, and in the
dialogue as well in J and E. Similarly, in the E and P versions of the Abraham
and Jacob cycles, Elohim is found in both the framework and in the
dialogues.

The source analysis by itself therefore does not give a clear
answer to the question of the names under which the patriarchs worshipped God.
The conclusions that can be drawn from these statistics depends on the
assumptions made about the relationships between the sources. If the sources
were completely independent and from the same period, their evidence should be
given equal weight. On this basis it would be right to conclude that Elohim was
certainly the earliest word for God. However, it is generally supposed that J
is some hundred years older than E and nearly 500 years older than P, and that
the later sources know the content of the earlier sources. On this assumption
only J can be really relied on. This would suggest that Yahweh was the earliest
name of God, and was later displaced by Elohim and El Shaddai. This is in flat
contradiction to the usual understanding of Exodus 6:3 (generally assigned to
P), which states that the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai, not as
Yahweh,which was a new name revealed to Moses. Though it has been argued that
Exodus 6:3 does not really mean this, and that the usual tradition misconstrues
it, advocates of the usual translation point out that the P passages in Genesis
nearly always use Elohim or El Shaddai (Yahweh only occurs twice in P Genesis),
which suggests that P indeed meant that the patriarchs did not know Yahweh as
the name of deity. Yet this explanation side-steps a major problem: how could
the author of P affirm that the patriarchs did riot know the name of Yahweh
when both the earlier sources J and E affirm that they did? If one supposed
that the author of P was ignorant of all the material in J and E, which
constitute five sixths of the patriarchal narratives,[6] this position would be defensible. But it seems
improbable, and some writers have gone further, affirming that P not only knew
JE, but that these were the main sources of P.[7] It
is evident that it is impossible to discover the content of patriarchal
religion without making a number of judgments on the date and interrelationship
of the pentateuchal sources.

2.2. Religious institutions

[p.163]

If the analysis of divine names is inconclusive, do the religious
institutions mentioned in the different sources give any better clue to their
relative dates and possible interdependence? Table 3 sets out the distribution
of the references in the various sources.

Table 3

Religious Institutions in Genesis

J

l/3J

E

½E

P

Divine Promises : descendants

6

2

2

1

3

: land

6

2

-

-

3

: blessing

5

1.7

2

1

2

Covenant : divine

1

.3

-

-

1

: human

1

.3

2

1

-

Altar building

4

1.3

3

1.5

-

Sacrifice

-

-

3

1.5

-

Pillar erection

2

.7

2

1

-

Libation

1

.3

1

.5

-

Tithe

-

-

1

.5

-

Vows

-

-

1

.5

-

Ritual purification

-

-

1

.5

-

Circumcision

-

-

1

.5

3

Household gods

-

-

2

1

-

Calling on the LORD

4

1.3

-

-

-

Intercessory prayer

4

1.3

3

1.5

-

In analysing this table two things must be borne in mind. First,
the figures are not as precise as in the tables dealing with the divine names,
because enumerating the number of references to such things as promises is
somewhat subjective. What I have tried to do is to list the number of occasions
an institution is referred to rather than the number of times a particular word
appears. Thus because only one altar is meant in Genesis 35:1, 3, 7, it counts
only once in the table though it is mentioned three times. Similarly the
numerous references to circumcision in Genesis 17 count as one. Second, it must
be remembered that E is twice as long as P, and J is three times as long. Thus
to make the figures of J and E comparable with P, those of E must be halved and
those of J divided by three. These results are found in the second and fourth
columns.

When this is done, it becomes difficult to see any clear trend
between the sources. E contains references to a wider span of institutions than
any other source, and P to the narrowest range. P's failure to mention
altar

[p.164]

building and sacrifice might be thought to represent his
reluctance to portray the patriarchs offering sacrifice without priestly
intervention.[8] But this is unlikely, for P
(Genesis) also omits reference to other institutions which did not require
priests, e.g. tithing, vowing, ritual purification and prayer. Furthermore the
regulations in Leviticus 1, 3 (also P) clearly envisage the layman slaying
sacrificial animals. The priests simply have to sprinkle the blood and place
the carcase on the altar. In view of the brevity of the references in Genesis
to sacrifice, it seems unlikely that the potential usurpation of priestly
prerogative by the patriarchs can be the reason for the omission of sacrifice
from P. More likely it is statistical variation. The brevity of P makes it
intrinsically less likely that it would give such a comprehensive coverage of
the religious institutions as J or E.

Analysis of the distribution of religious institutions is thus of
little use in determining the relationship between the sources or their
relative age. Since everything mentioned in P is also found in J or E, P could
be either earlier or later than the other sources. If, as is customary, it is
assumed that J and E are earlier than P, it follows that no religious
institution mentioned in the patriarchal narratives is later than the
composition of these sources, for nothing is found in P which is not already
found in J or E. These religious institutions could therefore date from
patriarchal times.

This preliminary discussion of the question of the divine names
and religious institutions has proved inconclusive, because the analysis of the
material depends too much on a priori assumptions about the existence,
extent, date and interrelationship of the sources. For this reason modern
discussions of patriarchal religion have skirted round the source-critical
problem and attempted to make comparisons between other near-eastern religions
and the data of Genesis to arrive at a picture of patriarchal religion. But
here again assumptions have to be made. With which type of religion should
Genesis be compared? The point of comparison chosen and the individual
scholar's evaluation of the reliability of the patriarchal tradition have
largely determined his final picture of patriarchal religion.

3. THREE VIEWS OF PATRIARCHAL RELIGION

3.1. A. Alt and 'The God of the Fathers'

The extraordinary influence of Alt' s essay 'The God of the
Fathers'[9] is proved by its longevity. Though first
pub-

[p.165]

lished over fifty years ago, it was not translated into English
until 1966 and it still is the point of departure for modern discussions of
patriarchal religion. For this reason, our survey of critical theories about
patriarchal religion begins with Alt.

Alt begins his essay by surveying the problem of recovering the
content of patriarchal religion. The compiler of Genesis identified Yahweh with
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac with the God of Abraham and so on. For
him these were different names of the same God. But according to Alt the
historical development of the religion was more complex, and often the compiler
of Genesis has read his own ideas into the traditional material, thus
distorting the picture of the patriarchal age.

In reality in the earliest phase of their religion the patriarchs
worshipped the gods of the fathers. The oldest names for the patriarchal
deities in Genesis are 'Fear of Isaac' and 'Mighty One of Jacob', alternatively
described as 'the god of Isaac' or 'the god of Jacob'. A third deity is also
mentioned, viz. 'the god of Abraham'. According to Alt these were three
different gods worshipped by different tribes or groups of tribes in their
nomadic period, ie. the patriarchal age prior to the settlement of Israel in
Canaan. He tries to demonstrate the antiquity of these names by comparing them
with Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic dating from the
first century BC to the fourth century AD. These tribal peoples were also
nomadic and they worshipped 'the god of X', where X was the name of the founder
of the cult. Different tribes worshipped different deities. When a god revealed
himself to a person, that person established a cult for him, and the god in
question guaranteed the protection of the worshipper's group or tribe.

Now according to Alt different tribal groups arrived in Canaan at
different times bringing with them different deities. The largest group, the
Jacob tribes, worshipped the god of Jacob and settled in the East and North of
the country. Another group, the Isaac tribes, settled round Beersheba and
worshipped the god of Isaac, while the Abraham group settled round Mamre and
worshipped the god of Abraham. In course of time the El gods of the local
Canaanite shrines were identified with the gods of the fathers, thus giving
these tribal gods their own name. Instead of an anonymous god of Jacob, names
like 'El, the God of Israel' (33:20) were invented. Furthermore, interactions
between the tribes led to a pooling of their history. To prove that the tribes
were related to each other, genealogies of the tribal founders were
construc-

[p.166]

ted. Abraham became the grandfather, and Isaac the father of
Jacob. Simultaneously the gods whom the different patriarchs served were
identified with each other, so that Genesis can talk about the God of Abraham
and the God of Isaac meaning the same deity. The final stage in the development
of pre-monarchic religion was the introduction of Yahweh as the national God of
all Israel in the Mosaic period. Exodus 3 and 6 make it clear that the God of
the Fathers was first called Yahweh by Moses. The worship of Yahweh by the
nation did not exclude the worship of the tribal gods, such as the God of
Abraham, at the tribal sanctuaries, but in course of time Yahweh was identified
with these local deities as well.

Now all the pentateuchal sources were written some time after this
religious evolution was complete, and they reflect their different authors'
understanding of the situation and many of the texts must be regarded as
anachronistic. They reflect the later writers' concept of the patriarchal
religion, rather than describing the true historical situation. Thus the
references to 'the God of Abraham' in Genesis 26:24 and 'the God of Abraham and
the God of Isaac' in 32:10 are just the invention of J.[10] Alt does not give a complete list of the passages he
regards as authentic reflections of the patriarchal religion, but the following
five would seem to be the few that pass his critical sieve: 31:5, 29, 53; 46:3;
49:25. They are all found in the Jacob material. Though this may seem a narrow
base on which to build a theory of patriarchal religion, Alt argued that it was
a firm one, because the patriarchal religion he described was so similar to
that of the Nabataeans, who centuries later gave up a nomadic way of life to
settle on the eastern and southern borders of Canaan.

3.1.1. Evaluation of Alt

The dominating influence of Alt's theory of patriarchal religion
can be seen in the standard histories of Old Testament religion. In view of the
relatively few texts on which his theory rests, its widespread acceptance is
perhaps surprising. If with the hindsight of more recent scholarship, his ideas
seem to have certain weaknesses, to his contemporaries they had obvious merits.
First, they showed that a thoroughly critical methodology could still discover
authentic traces of the patriarchal period in the Genesis narratives. They were
not simply the retrojections of later writers' imagination into earlier times.
Secondly, though only a few verses actually go back to ancient times, the
picture of the gods of the fathers in the authentic verses is remarkably like
the God of Genesis. The essence of the tradi-

[p.167]

tion in its most ancient and its most developed form is the same:
God revealed himself to the patriarchs; he promised them descendants; he
protected them in their wanderings; and, enjoying a special relationship to
him, they worshipped him and established holy places in his honour. Only in one
respect was there a substantial difference between the patriarchs' religious
experience and Genesis' interpretation of it. Each patriarch worshipped the
particular deity who had revealed himself to him, but contrary to the
assumptions of Genesis and its earlier sources, these deities were different,
not one and the same God Yahweh. Though the Genesis editors try to show that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all worshipped the same God, and were therefore
implicitly monotheistic, critical analysis of the tradition showed that the
patriarchs worshipped different deities and the earliest form of religion was
essentially polytheistic.

Later discussions of Alt's work have drawn attention to two main
weaknesses in his synthesis. First, Lewy[11]
questioned his view that the patriarchal gods were really anonymous, known only
by their worshippers' names, not their own names. He pointed out that old
Assyrian texts from nineteenth-century Cappadocia also spoke of 'god of
your/our father' as a description of the high god of Assyria. He argued that
the real name of the patriarchal god was El Shaddai, and that 'God of my father
Abraham' and similar phrases defined the worshippers' relationship to the deity
and were not a substitute for his name. Subsequent studies have shown that
phrases like 'God of my father' are well known in the Near East to describe
named deities.[12] The second weakness of Alt's
approach is the remoteness of his comparative material. The Nabataean
inscriptions that he cites are nearly 2,000 years younger than the patriarchal
period. In the same year that Alt's article was published, the first
discoveries were made at Ras Shamra, ancient Ugarit. These have revolutionized
scholarly understanding of second-millennium Canaanite religion, and there have
been various studies arguing that the Genesis narratives make better sense
understood against this background rather than later Nabataean religion.[13]

3.2. F.M. Cross and 'Yahweh and the God of the
Patriarchs'

Of all the recent attempts to understand the religion of the
patriarchs against the background of second-millennium near-eastern religion,
F. M. Cross's essay 'Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs' is the most
thorough. It was first published in 1962[14] and was
republished in an expanded form in 1973.[15]

[p.168]

Cross begins by summarizing Alt's essay we have just discussed.
Though he agrees with Alt's general picture of patriarchal religion as a
personal clan religion based on revelation to the patriarchs, he disagrees with
Alt in seeing the patriarchs' god as originally anonymous. Cross maintains that
the patriarchs worshipped the high god of Canaan, namely El. In other words the
passages which call the God of the patriarchs, El Shaddal, El Elyon, El Olam,
etc., are not secondary later elements that were added to the tradition after
the settlement in Canaan, as Alt held, but represent the original name of the
God worshipped by the patriarchs. Phrases like 'the God of Abraham' are not
used in Genesis because the God Abraham worshipped was anonymous, but to bring
out the special relationship that existed between Abraham and his God, El
Shaddai.

Cross, like Lewy, argues that since named Assyrian gods could be
called 'god of your father', similar phrases in the patriarchal narrative could
be taken the same way.[16] Furthermore there is
evidence of similar usage in other regions and periods, particularly among
early second-millennium Amorites.[17] He further
questions whether Alt was correct in supposing that the Nabataean deity Du-Sara
was originally anonymous. Since the name was unknown in Transjordan prior to
Nabataean settlement, it is likely that the Nabataeans brought the name with
them. But whether or not Alt's reconstruction of primitive Nabataean religion
is correct, the analogy with the patriarchal period is remote and
inappropriate. In Genesis the patriarchs are associated with both Mesopotamia
and Egypt, unlike the desert origin of the Nabataeans, and must be presumed to
have known the names of numerous deities.[18]

Though names like El Elyon and El Olam are found in Genesis, does
it follow that these names refer to El, the high god of the Canaanites? Cross
admits that names like El Olam could either be understood as 'El, the eternal
one', or as 'the god Olam'. To show that the first possibility is the correct
one, he says it must be shown that Olam, Elyon, and Shaddai are appropriate
epithets of El, as his character is depicted in extrabiblical texts. However,
two titles at least are unambiguous in their reference to El. These are
(Gn. 33:20) which must be translated 'El, the God of Israel' and
'el,[19]
(Gn. 46:3) which must mean 'El, the God of your father'. El Olam (Gn.21:33)
finds a parallel in a fifteenth-century Canaanite inscription which mentions
'1 d 'lm 'El., the eternal one'. Numerous texts describe El as an old
man, the patriarchal head of the pantheon. Cross therefore find no difficulty
in taking
in

[p.169]

the same sense, i.e. El, the Eternal. The antiquity of this name
in Hebrew tradition is supported by the old poem Deuteronomy 33:27 which
Cross[20] translates: 'His refuge is the God of Old,
under him are the arms of the Ancient One ().The second title used in
Genesis that is suggestive of Canaanite El is 'God Most High ('el
'elyôn) creator of heaven and earth' (Gn. 14:19, 22; cf. verses 18,
20). The epithet 'creator of heaven and earth' admirably fits El, the principal
creator God in the Canaanite pantheon, and the only god described as ()
'creator of earth'. However, the epithet 'elyôn is unusual. In
other non-biblical texts Elyon appears as an independent god alongside El.
Cross conjectures that
'elyôn of Genesis perhaps represents an early form[21] referring to a single deity which later split to form a
pair of gods.

The commonest El title in Genesis, El Shaddai, is also the most
problematic. Cross argues that though it occurs mainly in the P source, there
is good reason to hold that it is an authentic second-millennium name. Shaddai
occurs in the blessing of Jacob (Gn. 49:25), generally recognized as an archaic
poem. It also forms part of the names in the lists of princes in Numbers
1:5-15; 2:3-29. Though these lists are usually assigned to the P source, the
names 'actually reflect characteristic formations of the onomasticon of the
second millennium'.[22]

Cross thinks that the best etymology of
connects it with tdw/y meaning 'mountain'.
would then mean 'mountain one', and certainly El was connected with a great
mountain in the underworld, where the divine council met.[23] However, El is not the only god connected with a
mountain, and no Canaanite text actually describes him as
. Cross suggests that
may be of Amorite origin and that the patriarchs brough this epithet with them
from Mesopotamia.[24]

Finally Cross argues that the hypothesis that the patriarchs
worshipped El helps to explain various features of later Yahwism. In particular
the name of Yahweh may be explained as an abbreviation of some such form as
,
'El who causes to be', ie. 'El the creator'. Such a continuity between El and
Yahweh would explain why El, Elyon, Shaddai and Olam continued to be perfectly
acceptable titles of Yahweh, particularly in poetry, whereas Baal and all his
works were fiercely rejected. In Canaanite mythology Baal was a new upstart
god, a rival to El. Secondly, postulating that all the Israelite tribes
worshipped El before they adopted Yahwism would explain their sense of unity
better than Alt's theory of a diversity of religious allegiances among the
tribes. Thirdly,

[p.170]

it explains why Aaron and Jeroboam could set up bulls as the
symbol of Yahwism, for this was also the animal that was associated with El.
Indeed the designation 'the mighty one of Jacob' (Gn. 49:24) could be
translated 'Bull of Jacob'.[25]

3.2.1. Evaluation of Cross

The attempt of Cross and others to interpret the traditions of
Genesis in the light of Ugaritic and other near eastern sources has been widely
accepted in Old Testament scholarship, and it is not hard to see why. First and
foremost, he uses extrabiblical material that is relatively close in time and
place to the generally received view of the patriarchs. Secondly, his synthesis
presents fewer problems than Alt's to theological readers of the Old Testament.
Whereas Alt held that each patriarch worshipped his own god, and these gods
were not identical with each other, Cross suggests that there is a basic
continuity between the God of the patriarchs (who all worshipped the same high
God El) and Yahweh, the God of Moses. Thus, although the authors of Genesis
have oversimplified things by claiming Yahweh appeared to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, for they only knew God as El, theologically they are correct in
identifying Yahweh with El, because historically Yahweh was an epithet of El.
Cross's reconstruction thus reduces the gap between theology and history in the
patriarchal narratives.

Notwithstanding broad agreement that the patriarchs worshipped El,
three aspects of the Cross synthesis have been strongly challenged. First, is
Elyon really an epithet of El or is he a separate deity? Those[26] who maintain the latter draw attention to the Sefire
treaty which names El alongside Elyon, and to Philo Byblius who apparently
regarded Elyon as El's grandfather.

Against this Lack persuasively argued that Elyon was once an
epithet of El but it later became an epithet of
, and this explains why Elyon is mentioned alongside El in the
Sefire text. It is part of a long historical process whereby Baal gradually
took over the position and epithets of El.[27]

More attention has been focused on the epithet Shaddai.
Ouellette,[28] followed by de Vaux,[29] suggests that
derives from
,
to be understood in the sense of 'steppe' rather than 'mountain'. That it
therefore probably referred to the god Amurru who is described as god of the
steppe. Cross[30] is prepared to accept that
may represent an Amorite name of El, but not to suppose that it is an
alternative name for Sin the moon god, as Bailey[31]
supposed. More recently Abel has pointed to other features in the patriarchal
narratives that could

[p.171]

indicate that El Shaddai was identical with the moon god. He
points out that the patriarchs settled in Harran, an important cultic centre of
the moon god, and that several of Abraham's relations had names associated with
the moon.[32]

Koch,[33] on the other hand, believes
that etymology does nothing to explain the meaning of
. Its use in Job indicates that it was originally a separate name
for God, expressing his nearness and protectiveness. In Genesis
blesses and grants many descendants. The character of
is therefore quite like Alt's gods of the fathers, and Koch suggests that the
two types of deity were identified in the pre-monarchy period. Later Shaddai
was identified with El giving the double name El Shaddai.

That such diametrically opposed interpretations of El Shaddai are
put forward emphasizes the limits of our knowledge. With Koch one must
acknowledge that the etymology of Shaddai is uncertain. Only if and when it is
found as an epithet of a god in some extrabiblical text will it be possible to
be more confident about etymology. However, Koch's idea that El Shaddai is a
late formation is implausible. Though more frequent in P than in other sources,
it also occurs in J[34] (Gn. 43:14) and El is paired
with Shaddai in early poems (Gn. 49:25, Nu. 24:4, 16).

The case for believing that El was known to the patriarchs before
they reached Canaan is strong. Il = El is a well-known member of the
third-millennium Mesopotamian pantheon.[35] Whether
El was ever identified with the moon god is uncertain. To judge from the names
of Abraham's relations and the cult of his home town, his ancestors at least
were moon-god worshippers. Whether he continued to honour this gods identifying
him with El, or converted to El, is unclear.[36]

For different reasons Haran[37] has
insisted on distinguishing between Canaanite religion and the religion of the
patriarchs. He. points out that as a rule the patriarchs do not seem to have
worshipped at the existing Canaanite shrines. When God appeared to them they
built their own altars. This fits in with their semi-nomadic lifestyle: they
generally camped outside existing towns but did not settle in them. Furthermore
their worship of El Shaddai, in common with other sons of Eber (Gn. 10:21)
suggests that their God was not simply borrowed from the Canaanites,[38] but common to a wider grouping of peoples. Haran's
points are well made, but their validity of course depends on the antiquity and
reliability of the patriarchal traditions.

A final point needs to be made about Cross' understanding of
patriarchal religion in the light of his view

[p.172]

of the pentateuchal sources. He holds that JE, the oldest epic
source, has been supplemented by a later priestly writer, and that P never
existed in isolation as a separate document. Now on any view of the documentary
hypothesis, it is strange that the latest source should represent most
accurately the religion of the patriarchs: El Shaddai occurs more frequently in
P than in any other source. But Cross' particular version of the documentary
theory[39] would appear to be contradicted by Exodus
6:3, which says that the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai but not as Yahweh.
Yet the J source, which P is supplementing according to Cross, often describes
the patriarchal God as Yahweh. How then can P say that they only knew El
Shaddai? The question will be explored more fully below.

3.3. Westermann's traditio-historical approach

Alt and Cross restrict their investigations to recovering the most
primitive and authentic features of patriarchal religion. They are not
interested in discovering how the traditions have grown in the subsequent
retelling, except in so far as it is necessary to recognize such accretions for
what they are, so that they may be disregarded in historical reconstruction.
Alt and Cross have also paid very little attention to the promises of land,
posterity and blessing that dominate the patriarchal stories. How far do these
go back to the patriarchal age, or how far do they represent later vaticinia
ex eventu in the light of Israel's success in the conquest and monarchy
periods?

C. Westermann in two important works Arten der Erzählung
in der Genesis (1964) and Die Verheissungen an die Väter (1976)
has discussed these problems in detail.[40 ]

As its title suggests, the first book is concerned with
defining the different types of narrative that are found in Genesis. Westermann
endeavours to show that Gunkel's definition of the Genesis stories as sagas
(sagen) is not quite apposite. A saga suggests that those involved are
engaged in extraordinary feats of heroism designed to make a name for
themselves. Westermann classes the Gilgamesh epic as saga. Whereas the
patriarchal stories are essentially about down-to-earth family problems, moving
house, childlessness, domestic quarrels and so on. Westermann therefore prefers
to call them Erzäblungen, i.e. 'tales', 'stories'.[41]

Westermann suggests that comparison with Icelandic folk tales
helps to clarify the origins of the Genesis stories. Icelandic sagas have been
classified into three types, family tales, kingly tales, and tales about olden
days. The first group resemble the patriarchal traditions in Genesis, and the
third group correspond to Genesis'

[p.173]

primeval history. This comparison with Icelandic traditions allows
Westermann to affirm with confidence the antiquity of the patriarchal stories,
though he holds that most of the promises contained within them are secondary
additions by editors and compilers.

Whereas earlier scholarship simply distinguished two main types of
promise in Genesis, the promise of land and the promise of descendants,
Westermann is much more precise. One must distinguish promises of (1) son, (2)
descendants, (3) blessing and (4) land, and various combinations of these
promises.[42 ]

According to Westermann promises can be regarded as authentic (ie.
part of the oldest part of a patriarchal tale) only on two conditions: first,
that the promise contains only one possible element, not a combination of
various elements (eg. land or descendants, but not both); secondly, that the
promise is intrinsic to the narrative in which it occurs and is not just an
incidental extra. The promise must resolve a tension within the narrative. On
these grounds only the promises of a son to childless women in Genesis 16:11
and 18:1-15 are certainly genuine.[43] He regards it
likely that an early promise of land lies behind the present form of 15:7-21
and 28:13-15.[44] The promises of numerous
descendants developed out of blessing formulae and are not really intrinsic to
the narratives.[45] Thus all the other promises
found in the patriarchal narratives represent the theological reflections of
later editors. They do not go back to the most primitive version of the
stories. This is particularly obvious in the case of the Jacob stories: with
the one exception of Genesis 28:13-15 Westermann believes that 'the promise
texts are all to be characterized as insertions, additions or short
notes'.[46]

His second work, The Promises to the Patriarchs, begins by
surveying the history of the discussion since Alt's article. He restates and
defends his own views in the light of more recent research. He is inclined to
accept Maag's suggestion[47] that behind Genesis
12:1-3 there may lie a promise of fresh pasture lands for the nomadic
patriarch, and that this was subsequently transformed into a promise of a land
to live in. This illustrates a criterion enunciated by Westermann for
distinguishing authentic ancient promises from later editorial additions.
Ancient promises must not envisage a change of lifestyle for the patriarchs. If
the promises clearly envisage a way of life that was achieved only after the
conquest of Canaan (eg. settlement in the land, or the establishment of the
monarchy), then they must be late.[48] On the other
hand, the promise of divine presence

[p.174]

(Mitsein), an additional type of promise (e.g. 31:3), which
Westermann distinguishes for the first time in Verheissungen, may be
authentic, since it reflects nomadic conditions and their need for divine
protection and guidance on their wanderings.

In a final chapter he compares the promise of a son to Abraham
with similar promises made to kings in the Ugaritic epic. This he thinks shows
the authenticity of the son promise in Genesis. Though the same epic texts also
contain promises of blessing and numerous descendants, Westermann argues that
these are essentially wedding blessings and not analogous to the Genesis
parallels, where the promise. comes from God, and therefore that they offer no
support for the originality of these patriarchal promises.

3.3.1. Evaluation of Westermann

The most positive assessment of Westermann's method has come from
R. Rendtorff. In his Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des
Pentateuch he accepts Westermann's thesis that the patriarchal stories were
originally independent units usually lacking any promises. For Rendtorff the
addition of the promises to the earlier traditions serves to unite and
interpret them. He believes the promises served first to link the stories about
Abraham into a cycle, and the stories about Jacob and Isaac into other
independent cycles, and that at a later stage more promises were added to
combine all the patriarchal stories into a large unit.

Negative reactions to Westermann have come from very different
directions. On the one hand van Seters[49] holds
that Westermann's claim that most of the patriarchal tales show signs of oral
origin is mistaken. Very few stories about Abraham show clear traces of oral
composition. Van Seters argues that these are early fragments inserted into an
essentially unified literary composition from which it is often impossible to
extract the promises without spoiling the point of the story.

While van Seters holds that Genesis is a late literary
composition, from which the promises can rarely be excised without damaging the
narrative, others, believing that the book does indeed reflect the patriarchal
age with some accuracy, have argued for the authenticity of the promises on
extrabiblical grounds. Eissfeldt[50] pointed out
that in the Ugaritic texts El promised land and descendants to his adherents;
while Cazelles[51] pointed out that in inscriptions
from the third to the first millennium BC near-eastern deities repeatedly made
such promises as we find in Genesis. Westermann rejected these paral-

[p.175]

lels on the ground that the promises were made to kings.[52] But this seems inconsistent with his appeal to the
Keret texts to prove the authenticity of the son promise, for Keret, the
recipient of the promise, was a king. And the Ugaritic texts also contain more
than one promise at once: for example blessing and numerous descendants.
According to Westermann such combinations in Genesis are secondary.

This brief review of modern theories about patriarchal religion
has highlighted some of the many problems that beset the researcher in this
area. In this field, questions of pentateuchal criticism interact with
questions of near-eastern religion in kaleidoscopic fashion. The data are like
pieces of a jigsaw which each scholar puts together in the way that seems best
in his own eyes. More recently still, claims have been made about the Ebla
texts that could affect our interpretation of patriarchal religion. In the
concluding section of this essay I shall try to piece together the currently
available data guided by the following assumptions: first, that the patriarchs
lived in the early second millennium BC when the worship of El was dominant in
Canaan; secondly, that the present form of the patriarchal narratives reflects
this period, though they of course interpret the patriarchs' religious
experience from a post-Sinaitic perspective.

4. TOWARDS A NEW SYNTHESIS

4.1. Introduction

In evaluating the work of Westermann I have already referred to
the studies of van Seters (1975) and Rendtorff (1977). Both works have in
common a rejection of the documentary hypothesis, preferring instead
supplementary hypotheses. Van Seters, who limits himself to the Abraham and
Isaac traditions, believes it is possible to identify a few pre-Yahwistic oral
traditions (e.g. Gn. 12:10-20), and a few short Elohistic developments (Gn.
20:1-17), but that most of Genesis 12 - 26 comes directly from the hand of the
Yahwist (J). The priestly writer made a few later additions (e.g. chapters 17
and 23). In other words van Seters sees the present form of the Abraham cycle
as an essentially literary creation mainly by the Yahwist.

Rendtorff is in certain respects more traditional than van Seters,
and in others more radical. He is more traditional in following Gunkel who
supposed that most of the Abraham stories were originally independent and oral.
However, he is more radical in rejecting the source-analysis terminology as
well as its methodology.

[p.176]

He considers that the Abraham stories were collected into an
Abraham cycle, the Isaac stories into an Isaac cycle, and Jacob traditions were
collected into a Jacob cycle, and that the Joseph stories are an independent
literary work. While some of the promises to the patriarchs are integral to the
independent stories, others were added when the cycles were collected to create
a unity between the different traditions. The three independent cycles of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were then at a later stage combined by the addition of
other promises to form a large unit, on a par with the primeval history (Gn. 2
- 11), the exodus story (Ex. 1 - 15), or the Sinai pericope (Ex. 19 -24). Thus
whereas the traditional documentary hypothesis divides the pentateuch into
independent vertical strands, beginning with creation and ending with the
conquest, Rendtorff argues that we should think in terms of horizontal blocks
of material each dealing with a particular topic (e.g. Abraham, or Joseph, or
the exodus), and that these have been collected together by later editors. He
thinks of a light P redaction, and possibly even lighter D redaction as the
final stages in the edition of Genesis.

Graphically we may represent the difference between Rendtorff's
understanding of the composition of the Pentateuch and the traditional
documentary hypothesis as follows.

Though at first sight van Seters and Rendtorff are proposing quite
different analyses of the Abraham traditions, on one basic point they agree:
that the cycle as it stands is a substantial unity whose present shape can be
ascribed to one principal redactor. This redactor took over earlier material
and integrated into his own scheme. In a recent article[53] on the flood narrative I argued independently of
Rendtorff that such a scheme fits Genesis 6 - 9 better than the usual critical
supposition of two independent J and P flood stories. It is more congruent with
the data to suppose that the flood, story is an essential unity, to be
attributed to the editor of Genesis who perhaps adopted a pre-Israelite story
and reworked it to

[p.177]

express his own theological understanding of the events. It seems
to me very difficult to distinguish between the work of the redactor of Genesis
and his source material, unless one supposes he borrowed directly from one of
the extant Mesopotamian flood stories.

With the patriarchal narratives it is even more difficult to know
where the source ends and the editor begins. Certainly the pervasiveness of the
promise themes throughout the patriarchal narratives focuses our attention on
the editor's understanding of his material. And it may be that some of the
promises do represent editorial additions to the earlier source material, but
since these earlier sources no longer exist, dogmatism is impossible. It would
seem wiser to begin with the explicit statements of the text about the editor's
intentions and not rely merely on conjecture. As far as his treatment of the
promises is concerned, the text is silent. But both Exodus 3 (generally
assigned to E) and Exodus 6 (generally assigned to P) make explicit reference
to the divine names used in Genesis. It therefore seems appropriate to begin
our study with an exegesis of these passages.

4.2. The exegesis of Exodus 6:3

Exodus 3:13-15 is translated by the RSV as follows.

Then Moses said to God, 'If I come to the people
of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you", and
they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?' God said to Moses,
'I AM WHO I AM.' And he said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, "I AM has sent
me to you."' God also said to Moses, 'Say this to the people of Israel, "The
LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, has
sent me to you": this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered
throughout all generations.'

Moses' question in verse 13 appears to imply that the people did
not know the name of the patriarchal God of Abraham. The divine answer in verse
14 then gives the personal name of the God of the fathers. However it is not
quite clear whether this name is 'I AM WHO I AM' (Hebrew 'Ehyeh
'ehyeh, verse 14) or Yahweh (verse 15). The latter seems more
likely.[54]

Exodus 6:3 clarifies the issue, if the usual translation is
correct. 'I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty (El
Shaddai), but by name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.' In other
words the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai, not as Yahweh. The latter name was
revealed first to Moses.

[p.178]

For the student of patriarchal religion it is the second half of
the. verse that is problematic. The Hebrew reads
yhwh.
The Greek and the Latin translate this clause literally: kai to onoma mou
Kyrios ouk
autois, et nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis. The older targums render it
equally literally: Onkelos
yy
,
Neofiti brm
tqip' yyy l' ' lhon. It is apparent then that the early translators took this
verse in its plain and obvious sense, and ignored the fact that several
passages in Genesis imply that God did reveal his name Yahweh to the
patriarchs.

The later targum,[55] pseudo-Jonathan,
is aware of the problem though. Exodus 6:3 runs: w'tg'liti l'brhm
b'
1
h' brm b'pe
1' '
ihon. (I revealed myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai and my
name Yahweh but in the character of my Shekinah I did not make myself known to
them.) In other words the patriarchs knew the word Yahweh, but did not
experience the glory of the Shekinah usually associated with the name.

Similarly mediaeval Jewish commentators attempted to solve the
problem by supposing that by his 'name' Exodus 6:3 means some aspect of his
character. Thus though the patriarchs knew the word Yahweh, they did not
understand the character that lay behind this name. This character was first
revealed to Moses. For Rashi, the divine characteristic implied by Yahweh was
the fulfilment of promises. The patriarchs received promises, but did not
experience their fulfilment. For Rambam the difference between God as El
Shaddai and God as Yahweh lay in the difference between the providential power
of God and his miracle-working power. Thus the patriarchs simply experienced
God controlling their circumstances and protecting them in ordinary natural
ways, while Moses experienced supernatural miraculous divine
interventions.[56] The same sort of explanation is
offered by Cassuto.[57] He holds that El Shaddai
refers to God in his character of giver of fertility, since where this term
occurs in Genesis it is attached to promises of being fruitful and multiplying
(e.g. Gn. 17:1-2; 35:11 etc.), whereas Yahweh means that 'He is the One who
carries out His promises'. Some Christian commentators[58] have also held that
(name) really means character and this explains the remarks in Exodus 6:3. The
patriarchs knew the word Yahweh, but did not experience the character implied
by that name. That was first revealed to Moses.

A second method of eliminating the clash between Exodus 6:3 and
Genesis is to suppose that the syntax of

[p.179]

Exodus 6:3 has been misunderstood. W. J. Martin,[59] for example, suggests the clause should not be taken as
a statement denying the name Yahweh was known to the patriarchs, but as a
question implicitly affirming that they did know him as Yahweh. Verse 3 should
then be translated 'I suffered myself to appear to Abraham, to Isaac and to
Jacob, for did I not let myself be shown to them by my own name YHWH?' He
points out that such an understanding of verse 3 is supported by the following
verse which begins (w[e]gam) 'and also I established my
covenant'. This implies that the immediately preceding clause ought to be
positive, not negative as the usual translation implies. A slightly different
interpretation of the syntax of Exodus 6:3ff. is offered by F. I.
Andersen,[60] but he arrives at the same conclusion
as Martin, namely that the verse is asserting that the patriarchs did know the
name Yahweh.

The third method of dealing with the problem, adopted by the great
majority of modern commentators, is to appeal to source criticism. They
understand the passage in the same way as the ancient versions: that it is
denying that the patriarchs knew the name of Yahweh. They claim that the author
of this passage, P, could make this assertion because in the P-material in
Genesis, God introduces himself to the patriarchs as El Shaddai not as Yahweh.
The two P-Genesis passages, where Yahweh is mentioned occur in descriptive
narrative description, not in divine speech (17:1; 21:1b).

A fourth possibility is put forward by Childs. He holds that the
revelation to Moses involved both the new name and its meaning. In other words
he combines the traditional Jewish understanding with the modern critical view.
'The revelation of the name of Yahweh is at the same time a revealing of his
power and authority'.[61]

There are difficulties with each of the suggested solutions. The
Jewish suggestion that the revelation of the name of God means the revelation
of God's character, has problems in defining exactly what aspect of his
character is expressed in the term Yahweh. Neither Rashi's explanation (that
Moses experienced the fulfilment of the promises while the patriarchs did not),
nor Ramban's suggestion (that the patriarchs knew only God's providence)
exactly fits the data. The patriarchs did experience a partial fulfilment of
the promises in the birth of children and the acquisition of burial grounds in
Canaan, while Moses actually died outside the promised land. And while Moses'
miracles were more spectacular, the birth of Isaac to an elderly couple seems
more than the usual act of providence.

[p.180]

The syntactic solution is beautifully simple, but it is strange
that the early translators are quite unaware of it. And the parallel passage in
Exodus 3, which suggests that the name Yahweh was new to Moses, also tells
against the syntactic solution.

The critical solution, which supposes that Exodus 6:3 is referring
only to the priestly source, while solving one problem, creates another. How
can the priestly writer who was writing after J have been ignorant of the fact
that J uses Yahweh to refer to God and occasionally allows God to introduce
himself as Yahweh? The older documentary hypothesis, which held that P was the
earliest source and that J was a later source avoided this problem. But by
dating P after J, Graf and Wellhausen have created this strange anomaly. If it
is held that this verse shows that P was totally ignorant and independent of J,
one is still left with the problem of the redactor's understanding of the
passage. How did he relate Exodus 6:3 to the statements in Genesis? Some sort
of exegetical solution is required to complement the critical understanding of
this verse as Childs has rightly seen. However, objections have already been
raised to Rashi's exegetical solution, which Childs tries to hold in harness
with the critical view.

4.3. Pre-Mosaic knowledge of Yahweh

It could lead to a more objective exegesis of Exodus 6:3 if it
could be determined whether the name Yahweh was known before the time of Moses.
To this we now turn. The evidence falls into two categories: indirect evidence
about the use of Yahweh in pre-Mosaic times and the testimony of Genesis. The
indirect evidence all suggests that El was a well-known god in early times, but
Yahweh was not. Most of this material has already been discussed; here I shall
just recapitulate and add a few extra observations.

The extrabiblical evidence shows clearly that El was the head of
the west Semitic pantheon in the early second millennium BC. This fits in with
reference to El, El Elyon, El Shaddai and so on in Genesis. On the other hand
there are no extrabiblical. texts attesting the name of Yahweh before Moses.
Recently Pettinato[62] has suggested that the texts
of Ebla may include Yahwistic personal names, indicating that Yahweh was known
in their pantheon. However, as Kitchen[63] points
out, the
element in Eblaite names may be just an abbreviation of other names. Archi has
recently expressed a similar view.[64] F. M. Cross
agrees with this, and, having seen a transcription of the term most confidently
asserted to refer to

[p.181]

Yahweh, holds that it is to be read quite differently.[65]
Final judgment will have to await publication of the relevant texts, but at the
moment there seems little evidence from outside the Bible that Yahweh is a
pre-Mosaic name.[66]

Indirect biblical evidence also points in the same direction.
Personal names among the patriarchs include several compounded with El, e.g.
Ishmael and Israel, but none with Yahweh.[67]
Similarly in the lists of tribal leaders in Numbers 1 and 2 there are several
names compounded with El and Shaddai, but none with Yahweh.[68] It has sometimes been suggested that Jochebed, Moses'
mother (Ex. 6:20) is a Yahwistic name, but this is far from certain.[69] The testimony of Genesis has already been surveyed in
the opening section. From this it was clear that the Joseph cycle by
restricting Yahweh to the narrative frame-word and using Elohim or El Shaddai
in the dialogue suggests that the editor of this section held that the
patriarchs did not know the name Yahweh though he believed that he was their
God.

In the Abraham and Jacob cycles the picture is not so clear-cut.
While Yahweh is more frequent in the narrative framework than in the dialogue,
the fact that Yahweh occurs in the dialogue suggests that the patriarchs were
familiar with the name. Whether this is a necessary conclusion must now be
examined. Passages where two names are used together, e.g. 'Yahweh El Elyon'
(14:22) or 'Adonai Yahweh' (15:2) do not need to be discussed, since it seems
quite possible that Yahweh has been added to show the identity of the older
name with the new name. More problematic are those passages where Yahweh occurs
alone.

The evidence for supposing that the editor sometimes introduced
Yahweh instead of El or Elohim is quite clear. For example, Hagar is told to
name her son 'Ishmael, because the LORD has given heed to your
affliction... So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You
are El Roi"' (16:11, 13). Similarly after his vision of the heavenly
ladder Jacob awakes and remarks 'Surely the LORD is in this place', yet
he goes on to call the place 'Bethel' (28:16, 19). In another encounter with
God Jacob's name is changed to Israel and he calls the place Peniel. (32:28,
30). In the last passage it seems probable that an original El has been changed
into Elohim, whereas in the first two passages El has been changed into Yahweh.
They show at any rate that the narrator felt free to use Yahweh instead of El,
not only in his own narrative but when reporting the dialogue of human
characters or the angel of the LORD.[70] This is
confirmed by an examination of the etymolo-

[p.182]

gies of the patriarchs in Genesis 29:31 - 30:24. Both Elohim and
Yahweh are referred to, but the names given are quite unrelated to the title of
deity. Within the narrative framework there is a clear tendency to mention
Yahweh at the beginning and end of a scene e.g. 12:1,17; 13:4, 18; 18:1, 33,
etc. The same tendency is noticeable in passages where Elohim is used in the
body of the scene, e.g. 17:1; 20:18; 21:1, 33. It may be that the same logic
explains the frequent use of Yahweh in the opening and closing episodes of the
Abraham cycle, i.e. chapters 12 and 24.

There are in fact only four passages in the patriarchal narratives
where Yahweh speaks and uses this name on its own to describe himself. The
first 'Is anything too hard for the LORD?' (18:14) is a proverbial statement
cast in the form of a rhetorical question. Here the divine name is quite
incidental to the thrust of the question, and therefore it would be unwise to
read too much into this passage about the patriarchal knowledge of the name of
Yahweh. Likewise though 18:19 mentions Yahweh twice, because it forms part of a
divine soliloquy explaining God's motives, this verse does not imply that
Abraham either heard these words or knew the divine name.

Much more germane to our discussion is the one other divine speech
which employs Yahweh without any other epithet: 'I am the LORD who brought you
()
from Ur of the Chaldaeans' (15:7). Other divine revelations mentioning one name
of God refer to him either as El Shaddai (17:1; 35:11) or 'God of your father'
(26:24). The uniqueness of 15:7 suggests there may be a special reason for the
use of Yahweh here. Earlier commentators tended to see verse 7 as an editorial
addition designed to link the two scenes that make up Genesis 15. More recent
studies[71] tend to favour the integrity of verse 7
with what follows.

An examination of the usage of the formula 'The LORD who brought
you out' in the rest of the Pentateuch suggests an explanation for the use of
Yahweh here. 'The LORD, who brought you out' occurs twenty-two times in the
Pentateuch. In every case except this one the reference is to God bringing
Israel out of Egypt. It is clear that 'the LORD bringing you out of Egypt' is a
stock phrase. It seems likely that the editor of Genesis was wanting to draw
attention to the parallel between Abraham's departure from Ur and Israel's
exodus from Egypt. He had to substitute Ur for Egypt in the standard formula.
If he had also replaced Yahweh, the name for God usually used in the formula,
the allusion to the exodus would have become inaudible. He therefore used
Yahweh in Genesis 15:7 to make the typological point that the God who brought
Abraham out of Ur was the same God who saved Israel from Egypt. So there

[p.183]

is insufficient ground for supposing that here the editor was
asserting that Abraham knew the name of Yahweh.

What seems more compatible with the evidence is that the Yahwistic
editor of Genesis was so convinced of the identity of Yahweh and the God who
revealed himself to the patriarchs,[72] that he not
only used Yahweh in the narrative, but also more sparingly in reporting human
and angelic speech. He showed even more restraint in modifying divine
utterances. Often the old title of God was left unaltered. When the editor
wanted to express the identity of the patriarchal God with Yahweh, he usually
did it by adding Yahweh to an older epithet. Only in one case does Yahweh
replace an older epithet, for which (I have suggested) there is a particular
theological reason.

If this is the correct understanding of the Genesis editor's
method, it sheds fresh light on Exodus 3 and 6. Taken together these passages
do suggest that a genuinely new name of God, Yahweh, was vouchsafed to Moses.
And this is the way the ancient translators took it. However, this did not mean
that there was a clash with the Genesis traditions, because they are not always
verbatim reports of divine revelation. Where it suited his theological purpose
the Genesis editor could add and even once substitute Yahweh in the divine
speeches. However, the great reserve with which in practice he modified the
wording of the speeches of God, as far as the use of the divine names is
concerned, could well extend to the promises contained in these speeches.
Westermann's hypothesis, which supposes that the promises were added to the
tradition with great freedom, becomes somewhat implausible. If, where the
editor's method can be checked, it can be shown that he was anxious to be
faithful to early tradition, as is the case with the divine names, it is
unreasonable to suppose that he acted without regard to the tradition in those
areas, such as the promises, where we have no controls. When it is also
remembered that it was not unusual for ancient Semitic deities to make such
promises as Genesis contains, there is a good case for holding that the
religious statements in the patriarchal tradition are just as old as any other
part of the stories.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Though the sources that describe the patriarchs' religion are not
as early or detailed as a religious historian would like, this study has tended
to support the main conclusions of modern scholarship about the character of
that religion. It involved the worship of the Semitic high god

[p.184]

El, who revealed himself to the leaders of the clans. In so far as
the patriarchs generally lived outside the main Canaanite towns, it seems more
probable that they first started to worship El in Mesopotamia, not in Canaan.
The God of the patriarchs was in a special relationship to their clans: Genesis
15 and 17 describe the relationship as a covenant, which involved promises of
divine protection and supplying their needs of land and children. The writer of
Genesis identifies the patriarchs' El with Yahweh and prefers to use the latter
term when describing divine activity, yet in reporting the words of God to the
patriarchs he uses Yahweh very sparingly suggesting that he wanted to transmit
the traditional form of the promises, not create divine words ex
nihilo.

The patriarchs' response to revelation took the form of the
traditional acts of piety, sacrifice, vows, tithes, ritual cleansing, prayer
and libations. They are portrayed as men of faith, who obeyed the divine
commands and believed his promises. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac which
exemplifies these themes may also represent a rejection of child sacrifice,
which was a feature of some types of El worship.

The type of religion portrayed in Genesis has many points in
common with later Israelite practice, but this is not to prove that the
patriarchal stories are simply retrojections of first-millennium ideas into a
fictional past. Revelation, prayer and sacrifice are features of most
pre-Christian religions. But certain aspects of patriarchal religion are so
different from later practice, that to suppose the traditions were invented in
the first millennium seems unlikely.

There are at least four striking contrasts between the religion of
the patriarchs and later Israelite practice. First, there is the use of the
term El instead of Yahweh in divine revelation. From Mosaic times onward Yahweh
was the characteristic self-designation of God. But in Genesis God usually
reveals himself as El. This distinction between the El revelation of Genesis
and the Yahweh revelation of later times is more than a verbal contrast. The
exclusiveness, holiness, and strictness of the God of Exodus is absent from
Genesis. Though the patriarchs are faithful followers of their God, they
generally enjoy good relations with men of other faiths. There is an air of
ecumenical bonhomie about the patriarchal religion which contrasts with the
sectarian exclusiveness of the Mosaic age and later prophetic demands.[73]

Secondly, the complete absence of Baal from the patriarchal
tradition points to its antiquity. In the second half of the second millennium
BC Baal took over from El as

[p.185]

the leading god in the west Semitic pantheon, yet he is never
mentioned in Genesis. This is intelligible if the patriarchal tradition
originated before about 1500 BC, but not if it comes from later times.

A third feature distinguishing patriarchal religion is its
unmediatedness. God spoke to the patriarchs directly in visions and dreams, and
not through prophets. In their turn they built altars and offered sacrifice
themselves without priestly aid. Such religious immediacy fits in with the
nomadic way of life of the patriarchs, but is quite different from the religion
of the monarchy period where priests and prophets were the usual mediators
between God and man.

The final striking difference between the patriarchal period and
the first-millennium scene is the non-mention of Jerusalem. The patriarchs
worshipped near other great sanctuaries Shechem, Bethel, Hebron and Beersheba,
but there is no unambiguous reference to Jerusalem. The town certainly existed
in patriarchal times: it is mentioned at Ebla and in nineteenth-century
Egyptian execration texts. Psalms 76 and 110 identify Salem (Gn. 14) with
Jerusalem, while 2 Chronicles 3:1 identifies Moriah (Gn. 22:2) with Mount Zion.
But in Genesis itself there is no hint of these identifications, and this is
most easily explained if the patriarchal traditions not only originated, but
were committed to writing, before Jerusalem became the principal cultic centre
in the time of David.

These features of patriarchal religion are compatible with an
early second-millennium date for the tradition, but they would be strange if it
grew up in the later monarchy period.

NOTES

[1] This essay was
written at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, during sabbatical leave there
supported by a grant from the British Academy. I should also like to thank
Professor F. M. Cross and Mr A. R. Millard for advice on several
points.

[2] For a thorough survey
of German Protestant views in the last 100 years see H. Weidmann, Die
Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Licht der Forschung seit Wellhausen
(Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1968).

The bracketed figures in the dialogue column
refer to divine speech: the other figure covers human, angelic and divine
speech.

The references to household gods in 31:19, 30,
32, 34, 35 and 35:2, 4 are not included.

[4] It may be asked why
Genesis is so reticent about the religious practices of the patriarchs when the
other books of the Pentateuch are replete with cultic details (cf. Ex. 19-40;
Leviticus, Numbers, Dt. 12-18). There is a similar contrast between the books
of Samuel and Kings on the one hand and the books of Chronicles on the other.
The former tend only to mention religious practices in passing, while the
latter describe the cult at great length. The reason for this discrepancy is
clear. Samuel and Kings were edited in a period when the temple cult had become
irrelevant. The bulk of the population was in Babylonian exile and unable to
worship in the temple. The author of Kings regarded it as more important to
explain the reasons for the exile than to recall nostalgically the elaborate
temple rituals which it was no longer feasible to carry out. The author of
Chronicles on rhe other hand was writing in a different situation, when many of
the exiles had returned and the temple had been refounded. In order to
encourage them to offer worship worthy of almighty God, he described at length
the glories of the first temple in the hope that they would try to emulate the
dedication of David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah. It could be that a similar
logic underlies the sparse details about worship in Genesis. Normal national
worship is described in Exodus to Deuteronomy. The individualistic worship of
the patriarchs without the aid of priests and prophets differed from later
practice to much a degree that it is by and large passed over.

[19] Cross regards the
definite article in Gn.46:3
as
secondary, dating from a period after the spelling was modernized and the
definite article introduced in about the tenth century BC. HTR 55, 1962,
p.232 n.27.

[34] Koch suggests this
verse is a P-influenced insertion into a JE context, VT 26, 1976, p.304
n.7. Since he admits the antiquity of the poetic passages, this looks like
special pleading. Some divine name is required in this verse.

[35] See J. J. M.
Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon (Baltimore: lohns Hopkins UP,
1972), p.34: 'The picture, then, that the Old Akkadian names give of Il is a
portrait of a high, but gracious god, who is interested in man's welfare, and
who is particularly active in the giving of children.' On Il at Ebla see G.
Pettinato, BA 39, 1976, pp.48-50.

[36] From a theological
standpoint it may seem easier to regard Abraham as a worshipper of El, the high
creator god of the Canaanite pantheon, than as a devotee of the moon god.
However, El's character had a much seamier side; for example child sacrifice
was frequently associated with his cult (Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp.25ff,
cf. Gn. 22).

[59] Stylistic
Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch (London: Tyndale, 1955),
pp.18f., followed by G. R. Driver, Journal of the Ancient Hear Eastern
Society of Columbia University 5: The Gaster Festschrift (1973),
p.109.

[66] Some discussions of
the Ugaritic and Mari materials also suggested that Yahweh was mentioned in
them, but this has now been generally rejected. See R. de Vaux, 'The Revelation
of the Divine Name YHWH', in Proclamation and Presence,
pp.52-56.

[67] On Judah see A. R.
Millard, 'The Meaning of the Name Judah', ZAW 86, 1974, pp.216-218, who
suggests it may be an abbreviation of
or
. In the light of the other evidence, I prefer the second
possibility.

[68] Though these are
attributed to P, the forms of the names are characteristically
second-millennium. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p.54.

[72] This could be the
point made by Gn. 4:26 'At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD,
which may be paraphrased, 'Then the worship of the true God began.' C.
Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Biblischer Kommentar, Neukirchener Verlag,
1974) pp.460-463, insists that this verse is tracing the origins of worship to
the primeval period, and does not necessarily indicate that the divine name
Yahweh was known then.